Thoughts on this assertion from Paul Krugman about Trumps economic plan?

Mr. [JEB] Bush, in particular, may pose as a reasonable, thoughtful type — credulous reporters even describe him as a policy wonk — but his actual economic platform, which relies on the magic of tax cuts to deliver a doubling of America’s growth rate, is pure supply-side voodoo.

And here’s what’s interesting: all indications are that Mr. Bush’s attacks on Mr. Trump are falling flat, because the Republican base doesn’t actually share the Republican establishment’s economic delusions.

The thing is, we didn’t really know that until Mr. Trump came along. The influence of big-money donors meant that nobody could make a serious play for the G.O.P. nomination without pledging allegiance to supply-side doctrine, and this allowed the establishment to imagine that ordinary voters shared its antipopulist creed. Indeed, Mr. Bush’s hapless attempt at a takedown suggests that his political team still doesn’t get it, and thinks that pointing out The Donald’s heresies will be enough to doom his campaign.

But Mr. Trump, who is self-financing, didn’t need to genuflect to the big money, and it turns out that the base doesn’t mind his heresies. This is a real revelation, which may have a lasting impact on our politics.

I think Krugman is overselling how much the base agrees with Trump over Bush on economic issues. I don't think the base is really taking economic issues into consideration at all. Trump is doing well because he's the most visible of the Republican candidates. And he's visible because he's constantly spouting off. Bush just isn't standing out from the crowd for any reason.

I don't think Krugman is saying anything as bold as "Trump is right about economic policy". What he is saying is that Trump's popularity indicates that the "supply side voodoo" Bush is using to attack Trump, is not actually widely believed by republican supporters. I'm not sure I agree, there are many other reasons republicans are backing Trump and not Bush, not least Trump's rabid anti-immigration rhetoric, fervent anti-Obama statements and brazen showboating. Patronizing as it may sound, let us not forget that apparently a majority of Trump's supporters think Obama is Muslim. The fact is these people are idiots, they are just stupid or ignorant, and probably both in fact. Unfortunately, when you accept that, this contest becomes much less interesting.

I think this is where it is. Even if people don't agree with some of the things he is for, the fact that he is a "take no prisoners" kind of guy is attractive. It seems the patience for tolerance and compromise has ended for a segment of the population. They want to win every time without giving an inch. They see Trump as a winner.

Funny enough, they will even take victory on issues they didn't want as long as the other side gets nothing.

Do you care to provide a source for your claim that most of Trump's supporters thinking Obama is a Muslim? Or your claim that all of them are idiots, and stupid and/or ignorant? Otherwise it kind of comes off as you being a pretentious piece of shit.

I've been pondering the same thing ever since Trump's endorsement of tax hikes and closing the carried interest loophole failed to dent his lead in the polls. The Republican base doesn't, absolutely, hate tax increases. They hate the notion of Democrats spending their tax money on minorities and youth and women, and they hate the notion of Establishment Republicans spending their tax cuts on corporate welfare. But Trump spending it on a wall to keep out Mexicans? That's fine. As long as the tax dollars are being spent on things they like, tax hikes get a pass.

I don't think Trump supporters have any sort of understanding of supply-side economics. They, and the rest of the Republican base, respond to simplified policy stances like, "tax cuts", "sanctity of life", "immigrants!!", "attack on Christianity". They have proven election after election that they will vote for candidates that don't represent their interests.

Independents however are a different story. As the evidence becomes more and more overwhelming that supply-side economics is a disaster, it becomes difficult to support. How is Kansas doing? Or Wisconsin? Just look at the Clinton-Bush II-Obama arc.

Eventually the Republican Party will have to develop a new ideology. Appealing to pissed off white guys and the rich is a losing game in the long run, maybe this election will mark the beginning of something new. I doubt it though.

They have proven election after election that they will vote for candidates that don't represent their interests.

Let's say you're the average white male without a college degree, the most republican demographic in the county. What exactly do you think the democrats are offering? Not the subsidies for higher education, you didn't go to college, and if you're hoping to send your kids they'll be actively discriminated against because of AA. Not more regulation, you're very likely to work in the sort of brown industry that democrats are actively trying to kill, and even if you don't, you have friends that do. Not gun control, you like hunting. Not a bigger welfare state, you make too much money to qualify for anything other than Medicare and SS, which both parties swear to protect.

So not only do the democrats offer you nothing, they also constantly talk about raising your taxes and calling you racist, sexist, etc. and blaming all the world's problems in you and yours. So how on earth is it "in your interest" to vote for people want to make take your money, give it to other people, and insult you in the process?

The Democrats offer, and deliver, things that help the white dude all the time.

Health care; you can stay on your parents health care until 26, no pre-existing conditions.

Wages; look at the economic recovery, minimum wage increase.

Education; Obama already introduced the 2 year free college program. Clinton and Sanders are both talking about a dramatic increase government funding of higher education.

Guns; nobody wants to take hunting rifles away, the goal is reduce the ability of people going into an elementary school and executing 6 year olds.

And raising taxes is focused on the people in the upper income brackets. People that pay a lower rate than you and I. There are some small tax increases like the federal gas tax, but how else do we pay for roads. That, by the way has some bipartisan support in the Senate, it is only the ultra right wingers in the house that don't support it.

Not all jobs are created equal, however, and a Journal Sentinel analysis of the data shows that while Wisconsin lagged the nation on low-skill, low-pay jobs, it more than held its own on jobs with medium-wage paychecks. In manufacturing, the state's largest single employment sector, Wisconsin added 6.3% to its job total during the four-year period (average weekly wage: $1,112) compared to a 5.9% gain for the nation (average wage: $1,268). Also, in a composite sector of information technology, engineering and bioscience jobs compiled by the Journal Sentinel, the state added 8.1% to its total (average weekly wage: $1,190) compared to 7.0% nationally ($1,810). In the generally low-paying sector of leisure and hospitality — which includes fast-food workers, cashiers, wait staff, baristas and hotel workers — Wisconsin added 4.3% (paying $319 a week) while the U.S. added 12.8% ($438). "When Gov. Walker took office, unemployment was at 8.1%," Laurel Patrick, the governor's press secretary, said in a statement. "It's now significantly lower at 4.4%, the lowest since April 2008 and a full percentage point below the national rate. This is also tied for 17th-lowest in the nation."

Did you skip over that part of the article you linked? There is much more to the economy than simply just job creation.

It's not about individual interests it's about class interest. What benefits a working class person more, public schools or deregulated financial markets? Safe roads and bridges or a lower capital gains tax? Affordable post secondary opportunities or abolishing the estate tax. Now, which party will work on the former and which party will work on the later? There are of course single issues like abortion or immigration. Have Republicans ever delivered anything beyond lip service to its base on these issues? Of course not. Fighting against abortion is MUCH more valuable in garnishing support than defending against the re-legalization of abortion, if it were ever outlawed. And rounding up 11 million people and building an enormous wall to make sure they don't come back is absolutely unfeasible and they know it, but they won't stop talking about it as long as it makes white guys mad.

And WI? Read this, or this, yes there are differences beyond the two governors but it would be hard to find two states that are as similar as MN and WI.

What benefits a working class person more, public schools or deregulated financial markets?

In regards to public schools, we spend more and get worse results than most other developed countries on education. Why do you think spending even more will get us a different result? On to the deregulated financial markets, how about easier tax codes and restrictions on starting small business?

Safe roads and bridges or a lower capital gains tax?

Can you provide a source where Republicans aren't for safe roads? I'm calling bullshit on this strawman.

Have Republicans ever delivered anything beyond lip service to its base on these issues? Of course not

I am pro choice myself, but if I remember correctly in Texas and some other states they have restricted access to abortions. Just a few weeks ago there was the whole Planned Parenthood thing which they used for ammunition to restrict funding. So you're wrong on that.

And rounding up 11 million people and building an enormous wall to make sure they don't come back is absolutely unfeasible and they know it, but they won't stop talking about it as long as it makes white guys mad.

It's a start to the bigger conversation that needs to be had about immigration though. Illegal immigrants absolutely drive down wages in this country for unskilled labor. As far as the "makes white guys mad" goes, if it affects your profession, like it does mine, it gets me mad. I just happen to be a white guy.

And WI? Read this, or this, yes there are differences beyond the two governors but it would be hard to find two states that are as similar as MN and WI.

Blasphemy... Wisconsin is full of idiot drunks. I may be bias being from MN myself though. Just because Minnesota is doing better doesn't mean Wisconsin is doing bad though. Wisconsin is a point below the national average and 1.5 points below Illinois, which just so happens to be run by Democrats. Source

You oversimplify the issue. Both financial markets and government funded services serve the entire economy both directly and indirectly. We only need to look at the housing bubble to understand that both gains and losses on Wall Street can have a significant impact on Main Street. The economy has trillions of different parts and millions of players which are all connected at any given moment so don't simplify it because it isn't a simple and/or problem.

Because "Republicans will end social programs" while Democrats will give those individuals free money, therefore voting Republican is "voting against their interests." It's really one of the most pithy, inane, attacks on conservatives.

Trump remains in the lead for other factors than just how well he is playing the media though. And I think the reason why the media loves him so has more to do with his sideshow circus act speeches which make for great television. 5 times more people watched the first presidential debate than ever before, and they weren't tuning in to watch what Bush III had to say about immigration.

I am convinced that, by and large, the media and indeed a very high degree of our "knowledge" institutions are dominated by liberals. Most journalists are democrats. Most social scientists are democrats, even in economics (although this social science profession has the most conservatives of any other field).

If every single worker on the floor of Ford was a Maoist, would the company be Maoist? No. What determines that is the structure within it works that allow ideas to be expressed.

So we ask, even if the media was full of 100% Maoists, would it be Maoist. Depends, we have to ask what the media is.

The media is not simply journalists or "knowledge institutions". The media is a group of corporations owned by a small group of conglomerates that have investments across multiple industries. Inherently, this requires certain biases: it requires a heavy capitalist bias since a corporate media system will not undermine itself because power is not suicidal. The next bias, ask how the media make money. Do they make money off reporting or do they make off advertising. They make nearly all their money (a huge huge huge supermajority) from advertising. This means you have to make a medium that is friendly to corporate interests--you can't for example openly undermine the capitalist system or business or the economic system itself and its inherent politics.

Well what about reporters? Well reporters operate within this structure: a capitalist corporate media system that prefers a bias towards business, against labour, and for the associated social and political which foster this. Be a journalist as long as you follow this and if you don't, you won't get far. No one is actively gonna suppress you--that doesn't exist--but why would a system of power promote ideas that undermine it. The people who go far as journalists are by and large embodying the core assumptions of the system and will--rightly say "no one tells me what to say" because if they did, they wouldn't be in that position.

So going back to the liberal point, you could argue that even though the system by simple logic requires a capitalist bias that there is some sinister liberal agenda--even though liberals don't control the actual economic and power structure of the news, somehow they create a bias. Well what is a liberal--in America.

A liberal assumes a state capitalist system is ideal. They assume a business oriented society is ideal and want some form of regulation on elements that might turn anti labor. They are generally not shy about supporting violence or if they do view it as an abberation of the system. Generally they share the assumptions necessary by a corporate media to participate in it.

So going back to that, I just find the point ridiculous.

If you think journalists run media, you think factory workers control General Motors. The product of news media is viewers, they sell audiences to advertisers to make money. News is secondary. They will be the first to tell you this. The constraints of advertising appeal require certain types of appeal (within the corporate system). By and large, journalists share most if not all assumptions of the people who actually run news corporations which also own weapon companies, energy companies, industry, etc.

So ignoring how news media make money, are run, organized, and by nature power structures in a capitalist system, if you ignore everything about the news media them a superficial and honestly idiotic statement like: journalists are democrats so the media favors them.

If every single worker on the floor of Ford was a Maoist, would the company be Maoist? No.

No? Seriously? If every worker in Ford subscribed to the same ideology, you're arguing that the metaphysical concept known as a company, whose actions are dictated by the physical entities (Ford's "human" "workers") that make it up, wouldn't be that same ideology?

Yeah, that's a ridiculous assertion. You could say the U.S. isn't a Christian nation, but every Muslim West of the Nile would probably disagree with you, and our culture, tradition, and society would lend credence to the Muslim's case.

The media is not simply journalists or "knowledge institutions"... ...you can't for example openly undermine the capitalist system or business or the economic system itself and its inherent politics.

And that's just nonsense. For one, corporations are routinely savaged by mainstream publications. Pick any one, they're not shy about gunning for corporations. They routinely write about problems that they then indict corporations AND capitalism for "causing." Seldom if ever do they apply the same level of journalistic scrutiny to the government, and it's actions. They don't face the same repercussions.

So you can bloviate on and on about how the evil capitalist leadership will never let them speak an ill word about corporations and capitalism, but you'd be demonstrably wrong. Negative press sells, and that's what the evil capitalist media empire owners care about. There might not be a word of bad press about the media companies themselves, but every other business participant in every other industry is fair game... except for government. They can't talk too much shit about the government, otherwise they'll be blackballed from meaningful press events, and thus, give their competitors a leg up on the story, on more eyeballs, and on more ad revenue.

Do they make money off reporting or do they make off advertising.

When you can figure out a way to make money on reporting without resorting to advertising, you're welcome to give it a try. WSJ, NYT, and many, many other publications tried. Consumers don't pay for it, and something has to, because there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Well what about reporters? Well reporters operate within this structure: a capitalist corporate media system that prefers a bias towards business, against labour, and for the associated social and political which foster this. Be a journalist as long as you follow this and if you don't, you won't get far.

Right, that's why Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schulz, Chris Matthews, Paul Krugman, Jessica Valenti, Arianna Huffington, and a spate of others have their own media soapboxes in which they espouse the very ideas that you argue are horribly censored by the mainstream media. Your conspiracy theory that those at the top are keeping a tight lid on any and all anti-capitalist, anti-business rhetoric? Laughable.

Brian L. Roberts is the CEO of Comcast, one of "The Big Six" (media companies that control everything), wrote a letter to Barack Obama endorsing the Affordable Care Act and donated much more to Democrats than he did to Republicans (source). Bob Iger of The Walt Disney Company has donated much more to Democrats than he has to Republicans (source). The "TV, Movies, and Music" interest group on OpenSecrets donates overwhelmingly more to Democrats than to Republicans (source).

By what objective measure is your ranty conspiracy theory to be taken as truth? NO number support you. Not even the "But the executives!" appeal carries any weight here, since by any objective measure, the only executive who's openly right-wing is Rupert Murdoch -- and then, you knew Rupert Murdoch's name AND his political affiliation. Why don't you know that about the other media companies, especially the two that are considerably larger than his media empire (source)?

So going back to the liberal point, you could argue that even though the system by simple logic requires a capitalist bias that there is some sinister liberal agenda--even though liberals don't control the actual economic and power structure of the news, somehow they create a bias. Well what is a liberal--in America.

Right... still not invalidating my point.

If you think journalists run media...

I don't. I think Liberals do. The Liberal journalists dutifully do their part, although I don't think it's some great, active conspiracy by Liberals for the most part. I do think that there is a worrying amount of subtle censorship of conservatives both in the news media, and in academia - although I would say the level of willfulness of censorship is much, much, higher in academia. I think most journalists do their jobs, and try to be objective -- we can only regulate our own biases so much.

Professors in American college/university, though? They're openly hateful of conservatives, to the extent that they brag about it and no one calls them on it.

First point, you didn't even read my first sentence correctly. I said on the floor as in the production line. Pontificate about metaphysics all you want, my point is that if you aspect of an organic entity is Maoist, the entity is not. If I said all workers, you would be correct but I didn't, read it again. The floor is the production line, a basic concept for a mind such as yours ruminating the nature of organic and inorganic entities and their ideologies.

Second point: does the NYT, the "liberal bastion" condemn capitalism and the corporation as an entity in our society? No. WSJ? Atlantic? LA Times? Boston Globe? No. Do they lambast individual corporations, yes. Incompetence and corruption are waste of resources in a corporate system, they got that point or criticize perceived ones all within the confines of accepting the standard assumptions.

Find me some editorials where the paper is on its editorial board, linked to corporate management, condemns capitalism or the corporation or the nation state or the market or any basic assumption of capitalism which suits it's arrangement.

About your point on "evil capitalist" I never stated there was any conscious effort. Your very first paragraph was that

If every worker in Ford subscribed to the same ideology, you're arguing that the metaphysical concept known as a company, whose actions are dictated by physical entities that would make it up, wouldn't be the same ideology?

You agree with me. A capitalist system will by its nature be composed of those who agree with capitalism, it's not a conspiracy theory. If I said some board censored them, it would be. It's just common sense, you grow and learn in a capitalist society that it's the best ideology or one to draw from. Just like an egalitarian society would have those values instilled without question. Just like, as you said, the fact is that physical entities and ideologies and metaphysics of the corporation are related. You're just screaming and unwilling to apply your own words to the media system, as I stated in my last result. It's a lack of critical thinking which is a shame because you seem to be able to create exotic arguments that are sound if you ignore basic facts.

I encourage you to learn how the news industry works and makes money, there is nothing wrong with being wrong. The majority of all profits are advertising not sales. It's nearly 20 billion in ad revenue, another 10 from digital ads. Papers are not condemning capitalism or corporation as an entity, criticizing specific corporations doesn't kill revenue. It's as simple as that.

On your point about the government. You are right but missing a few things. Yes, they rely on sources and this creates a narrative usually favorable to government interests since they are not going to--usually--go out of their way to leak things which make them look negative. Similar for business, doubly so since business is a source of revenue.

Now for advertising, again the undisputed source of revenue to anyone who is familiar with news industry--not sales--important is environment AND demographic appeal. Advertisers are sold audiences, newspapers have different audiences. The NYT different from NYT from Boston Globe from Atlantic, you get the point. So a positive environment for investment and a strong demographic appeal.

Now you yourself stated, in the first paragraph, it's ridiculous to assume a group of the same ideology will not affect any larger metaphysical groups: a family, corporation, etc. So for the NYT key demographic, the "political class" which is usually college educated, either in politics or policy, and academia and news making, an appeal to them would require a capitalist bias which I'm talking about.

Now this isn't a big bad conspiracy theory, it's an idea you yourself were willing to throw at me when you misread my sentence but refuse to accept the implications of. Interesting.

Next point: the news papers you named all are some of the biggest money generators for advertising, what are you on about? In fact their experiments were retrospectively failures which is why the have never left their traditional model in any serious form.

Next point: I just honestly think you don't care to read what I say. I stated you get to the top as a journalist by following the assumptions.

those you just named are by and large BROADCASTERS

they again share the basic assumptions for the most part about capitalism and the corporation being ideal or desirable. Those you named specifically tirade against specific ones that give grievances but are fine with the market system and are fine with corporate personhood and rights for the most part.

as I stated above, but I'm surprised you didn't point out--but there are exceptions. For example, The Nation itself or the Independent we could go on for days. Doesn't really change anything, you want to go far in the journalist world by and large you are assuming and sharing the basic assumptions about the system. You're honestly dense if you think I said anywhere--I made it clear no such thing existed--there is some censorship or some leadership. It's a system that works itself.

Is our society suddenly going to have anti egalitarian leaders everywhere? No. Why? For the same reason we have capitalist reporters and heads of media--these are ideas we accept de jure--the default ideology, the implicit basis for our society. I am just confused why you are so quick to accept this to dismember the Ford example--despite misreading it--but refuse to apply it to the media.

Next point: And? Are they undermining the corporation or capitalism? They supported a privatized mandated health care marketplace law put forward by a President who ideologically is more conservative than the Nelson Rockefeller, the socially liberal and fiscally conservative Republican governor of NY that dominated politics for a short while and defined a phase of Republican politics.

If the ACA was a single payer system you would have a weak point but a more serious one that didn't sound like rattling off talking points instead of political discussion. It's not a liberal law by any measure, it does nothing to challenge the fundamental assumption that government should not use buying power to negotiate lower prices or provide care--which keeps it safely conservative (this was after all a plan put forward by conservatives for many years in the past anyways).

Last point: I've been on mobile so I can't source as I would like to but I can assure you I'll add some edits with basic sources for you that help you see the points. As for your final point, so let me get this right.

When I use your point, it's a conspiracy theory. I am saying censorship by big bad capitalists and that's wrong because even though--as you pointed out--an ideology adopted by a system implies that it's participants accept it generally and vice versa, really this is just laughable rhetoric. But there exists a subtle censorship of conservatives for the same reason: the general ideas adopted are liberal so they work against conservatives. It's nonsense, you're contradicting yourself thrice over to make a weak point. Laughable!

I'll add the edits in a few hours when I'm finally home if that suits you, would you be above watching a simple video on the subject accompanying the sources?

Again if we ignore how the world works and believe factory workers run a car company, then neither + Democrats rule.

The media's product is audiences to advertisers and that relationship determines the nature of news, not individual reporters.

I mean this with no contempt or judgement but the assertion that Democrats control the media because they are the journalists is idiotic. News is within an institutional structure that is ostensibly capitalist of the moderate to right variety. If we delude ourselves into thinking journalists are independent of a system the way workers are beholden to one then we are idiots. No one says video game products are liberal because animators are. No one says the military is conservative because of soldiers. If either is liberal or conservative, it's because of the institutions. The military itself is conservative because those values line up with its core assumption about its societal role.

Again, you have to ignore how any system in our society works and believe journalists are special and able to be free to critique the system in which they rely but not free enough to fight a liberal bias inside the system that doesn't exist.

So the personal politics of less than a third of journalists is democrat?

Firstly, how does their personal Party affiliation automatically make them bias in terms of liberal?

Second, did your even read the article past the headline- it says that the vast majority of journalists are either independent or other. That would indicate that they are more likely to be neutral rather than liberal.

Third, the "media" is made up of multiple organisations, thousands of journalists and, with the advent of the Internet, has many independently operating outlets. Branding them all with one ideology or referring to them as one entity is just inaccurate.

Firstly, how does their personal Party affiliation automatically make them bias in terms of liberal?

Who is more biased to Liberalism, Democrats or Republicans?

Second, did your even read the article past the headline- it says that the vast majority of journalists are either independent or other. That would indicate that they are more likely to be neutral rather than liberal.

That doesn't imply that at all. More likely, journalists, dealing with studies and sample sizes and surveys all the time as a matter of their careers, decided to fill in "independent" so as not to appear biased, but in fact holding many liberal views. Most "independents" are not independent at all, only 20% of them actually hold views that do not jive with one party or the other -- no reason to think that this doesn't hold true with journalists.

Third, the "media" is made up of multiple organisations, thousands of journalists and, with the advent of the Internet, has many independently operating outlets. Branding them all with one ideology or referring to them as one entity is just inaccurate.

I'm not branding them all. I'm stating an accurate statement: That most of them are liberals, and that that colors their reporting.

I don't see why it should. Journalists are trained to be objective- their own personal politics shouldn't make a difference to their objectivity.

The other thing to be aware of about these studies is that it generally surveys journalists, not just journalists that cover politics. No-cares if a journalist who specialises in food or sport (for example) is a democrat or republican.

This is not a personal attack, nothing against you, but this comment you posted is so ignorant I can hardly believe it. It is hard to see ones own cognitive dissonance which is I assume the reason why you were able to post this.

He doesn't misrepresent in his columns whatsoever you are just saying that because you don't agree with his opinion on this subject. You are a layperson saying a Nobel prize winning economist is wrong about economics. Think about that for a moment.

Holy shit! Could all you conservatives at least try to not parrot the same exact talking point that you heard from the National Review Online? I mean, I read that there too but holy fucking shit guys. Wow.

Sounds like Krugman is pointing out that disaster capitalism, which is what the Republican Party supports, is exactly that, a fucking disaster and the republican base is wise to that. Sounds plausible.

Krugman is like a broken clock. He's right twice a day- and here only by coincidence.

It's not so much his economic policy that Trump supporters like; it's that he's sticking it to the R establishment because the R base is pissed off at the leadership. Basically, Krugman has his head full of wishful thinking, as usual. He thinks it's a substantive policy difference on economics, and it's not.

Personally, I'm on the fence about Trump. I'm torn between disliking him because of many of his positions and sticking it to party leadership that seem more concerned about reelection than undoing bad policy.

Trumps economic plan is quite noticeably different that JEB. he has said several times he supported closing loopholes for the wealthy hedge fund managers who don't pay their fair share, this is grossly different from JEB who has never criticized their tax rates and supports lower taxes on the wealthy. They're similar, but still different.

Also Krugman isn't a broken clock; yes you might disagree with his worldview, but he's also a highly intelligent economist and respected in his field even by his opponents. You don't win a Nobel prize in economics by coincidently being right once a day.

which relies on the magic of tax cuts to deliver a doubling of America’s growth rate, is pure supply-side voodoo.

Let's see, we already work 114 days just to pay taxes. Explain the voodoo of how getting to keep over three months pay to keep wont make us all richer??

Anyone working and with half a brain would know and love to get to keep that much more of the fruits of their labor!

PS. I'm not saying the tax cuts will be over 90 days. I'm just pointing out your argument is absurd. Getting to keep our money proves you wrong. Although, there can be too little and or too late. Which I wont dispute is a problem today.

Bush isn't talking about lowering your taxes. Sure, you might see a small decline since they will have to throw you some sort of bone, but it will be a drop in the bucket in comparison to the cuts at the top.

And who loses services and government benefits when revenue goes down? You do.

Do not submit content that does not discuss politics (such as meta posts, discussion of other subreddits, other redditors or moderators).

Do not create DAE, ELI5, CMV, or TIL type submissions.

Do not create submissions to soapbox your political agenda. /r/PoliticalDiscussion is here to discuss and ask about current politics. It is not for here for you to soapbox or campaign. Please post your opinion pieces to our sister subreddit, /r/PoliticalOpinions.

Do not post links to news or blogs. You can post sources to provide background or supporting information, but you must provide a summary of the source. Do not circumvent text only submissions by simply posting a link in the text box or copying material from an outside source.

Fight your own battles. Please do not ask for material to back up your position on an outside argument, for help with homework or independent research, or for other users to educate you on a topic.

Questions/prompts that boil down to "Thoughts?" or "Discuss" are low effort and will be removed.

If your submission doesn't ask a question or invite discussion, it probably does not belong here. For more details on posting see our wiki.

Please use your power to upvote quality content, and downvote content that detracts from the quality of this subreddit. Please report content that breaks the rules.

Comment Rules

Keep this subreddit HIGH QUALITY by observing Reddiquette and our comment rules:

Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or post racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory content. Constructive debate is good; mockery, taunting, and name calling are not.

Do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.

No meta discussion. This is not a subreddit for discussing what's going on on reddit; conversation should be focused on the topic at hand. Meta content includes talking about reddit, other subreddits, redditors, and moderators. All meta content will be removed.

Warnings. The rules are intended to maintain the high quality of the subreddit, and garden-variety violations will be met with a reminder from the moderators. If you would like to have your comment reinstated, please edit the offending material and let the moderators know via modmail. Users who demonstrate an inability to consistently follow our rules will however be banned at moderator discretion. Please also note that severe violations of the civility rule may result in an immediate permanent ban.

Further details regarding these rules are available here, and recent clarifications to the civility rule regarding taunting and mockery can be found here.